LastLegend wrote:Well can we be conscious of everything at the same time? The mind can only focus on one object at the time.

Seeds exist only momentarily, so there are thousands of them in the mind at the same time. How can it manage that then?

LastLegend wrote:It is not there when there is no trigger or association, it arises when there is. So is it there?

Alayavijnana is supposed to store everything, including memories.

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

LastLegend wrote:P.S. Alaya is not physical so does it have a limited storage capacity?

It doesn't. Since it is not physical, it does not occupy any space.

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

Astus wrote:By awareness I did not mean any particular function, but simply consciousness.

Now you shifted the posts again, you went from awareness to feeling to consciousness. I cannot play the game if you keep changing the rules.

Or I can also say that except for rupaskandha all the others belong to nama;

Yes, well... but even nama is broken up into citta, vijnana, mano vijnana, manas and alaya vijnana, so... Again, you need to define your question more accurately: You can't get an answer if you don't know the question. This was Ven. Huifengs point right from page 1.

And from the Vijnaptimatra view, whatever experience there is, it is a mental phenomenon anyway.

Again, yes, well, I mean , really, what exactly does this have to do with anything? Know what I mean?

Anyway, within the confines of Abhidhamma I think I have answered your original question, so if you have a new question, otherwise... Arivederci from me!

In Buddhist systems other than Yogacara, consciousness or awareness always has an object: to be aware is to be conscious of _something_. This view is most explicitly formulated in the Vaibhasika shcool. Each moment of consciousness is said to have its specific object and no moment of consciouss lacks an object. In the yogacara system, however, the alayavijnana (storehouse consciousness) is said to exist inherently even in the absence of an object. ...Paul J. Griffiths views this theory as a philosophical construct to help reconcile "the experienced facts of the continuity of personal identity, such things as memory, continuity of character traits, the continuing sense that each person thinks of himself as identifiably an individual, identifiably different from other individuals and identifiably the same person as he was in the past," with a metaphysics that denies the existence of enduring individuals and events....Other Buddhist schools reject the alayavijnana and the notion of a consciousness that exists without objects. For them, the mental consciousness (manovijnana) is perfectly capable of continuing after death and there is no need to posit an additional consciousness. The same reasoning that is used to refute the existence of a self-reflective consciousness (svasanivedana, self-knower) is used to refute the idea of alayaijnana. Consciousness is simply conscious; there is no need to posit an additional, self-aware consciousness. .......as Griffiths points out, the alayavijnana does not satisfy "standard Buddhist definitions of consciousness as something which cognizes, something which has an intentional object," instead consisting merely of extremely subtle "seeds" of awareness that are destined to "ripen" at some subsequent time, in conjunction with causes and conditions. Neither conscious nor material, the nature and status of the alayavijnana is ambiguous and far too closely approximates a self to be acceptable to the adherents of other Buddhist schools.

I believe the Paul Griffiths text refered to is On Being Mindless, Buddhist meditation and the mind body problem. 1986.Best wishesLars

In Theravadran Abhidhamma they get around this glitch through the presence of the Bhavanga, or life continuim consciousness, which is like neutral or idling mode for the mind.

Astus wrote:And my issue is with the seed as mental phenomenon. Here it makes no difference that it is a contingent remainder or whatever else. The question is regarding it's nature of existence. For instance, you say, "It can only operate so long as you are caught unawares", but how can a consciousness operate without being conscious?

The same way you can walk or ride a bicycle without thinking about it. It's habit.

gregkavarnos wrote:Now you shifted the posts again, you went from awareness to feeling to consciousness. I cannot play the game if you keep changing the rules.Yes, well... but even nama is broken up into citta, vijnana, mano vijnana, manas and alaya vijnana, so... Again, you need to define your question more accurately: You can't get an answer if you don't know the question. This was Ven. Huifengs point right from page 1.

And from the Vijnaptimatra view, whatever experience there is, it is a mental phenomenon anyway.

Again, yes, well, I mean , really, what exactly does this have to do with anything? Know what I mean?

Anyway, within the confines of Abhidhamma I think I have answered your original question, so if you have a new question, otherwise... Arivederci from me!

I have not changed the subject for even a tiny bit. Consciousness, awareness, etc. they all mean the fact of experiencing something. And when I say experience it is something that appears in a consciousness, and one is conscious, i.e. aware of something. This was the very definition of consciousness I have quoted from Vasubandhu in the previous page, "What is consciousness? It is awareness of an object." It is simply the dharmadhatu-manodhatu-manovijnana in the 18 dhatus system, it is the sixth sensory faculty, that includes all possible mental functions in the Abhidharma system, that is defined by being aware of an object. Putting it in the Yogacara context, the basic consciousness, alayavijnana, is also defined by awareness. That's why I said that since the very essence of consciousness in general - no matter which of the 6/8 consciousness one talks about - is the fact of awareness of something. And that's what the question comes from, that if consciousness - including alayavijnana - is necessarily being conscious of something, how is it that one is not, and actually cannot be, conscious of the seeds.

And so the Mahayanasamgraha (1.26) puts a difference between the alayavijnana and the other seven,

"The other consciousnesses are different from the container consciousness. They are the active consciousnesses that are present in all births and destinies. Know that they are also called the experiential consciousnesses, as taught in a verse from the Analysis of the Middle and the Extremes:The first is termed causal consciousnessAnd the second experiential consciousnessWherein the mental states of sense experience,Discrimination of names, and activity take place."

This could very well be interpreted as that although it is called container consciousness, it is not conscious at all. Then why called consciousness?

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

deepbluehum wrote:BTW, seed is just a metaphor. There's no actual seed. It is the operation of three faculties of the mind carrying on habitual actions.

I don't think it is important whether you call it habit, defilement, imprint, seed, etc. In all cases what is meant is latent mental phenomenon not experienced in the present, it is a so called potential. And so my question, why is it a mental phenomenon when there is no awareness of it?

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

Astus wrote:I don't think it is important whether you call it habit, defilement, imprint, seed, etc. In all cases what is meant is latent mental phenomenon not experienced in the present, it is a so called potential. And so my question, why is it a mental phenomenon when there is no awareness of it?

Are you aware of all your memories this moment? Normally we don't pay any attention to how we operate so we respond to phenomena conditioned by our memories. When we practice the path, we become aware that a given situation always generates a certain feeling, then we come to recognize the feeling has no real nature, that no feeler can be found, etc., and the conditioned response is subverted. Yet, the remaining awareness that is beyond subject and object is present, and that is the alaya-vijnana.

deepbluehum wrote:BTW, seed is just a metaphor. There's no actual seed. It is the operation of three faculties of the mind carrying on habitual actions.

Can you please reference to something describing the three faculties of mind from a Buddhist perspective? I can only find Hindu stuff. Do you mean the three gates?

Oh no I'm referring to the 8-consciousness model. The seed is a metaphor for the sense-consciousnesses, chitta and manas. In the example of the cup, your eye contacts light and object. This is only sense sphere. Then the mind judges either accepting, rejecting or ignoring. This is eye-consciousness. The mind is creating subject and object and preparing for action. This is chitta and manas. These are concurrent contingencies. These are all mental phenomena. The alaya-vijnana is in the background. It's only function is it illuminates. In a sense, you can put the alaya up front, and then based on lack of understanding one continuously gets into these sense-mind reactions.

deepbluehum wrote:Are you aware of all your memories this moment? Normally we don't pay any attention to how we operate so we respond to phenomena conditioned by our memories. When we practice the path, we become aware that a given situation always generates a certain feeling, then we come to recognize the feeling has no real nature, that no feeler can be found, etc., and the conditioned response is subverted. Yet, the remaining awareness that is beyond subject and object is present, and that is the alaya-vijnana.

Of course I am not aware of all my memories, and even if I wanted I could not recall everything. Still, it is said that the alayavijnana retains all the imprints not just from this life but all the previous ones, and that's how a karmic effect can occur kalpas later. My question, however, is not about how it happens in our lives, but how can those be reserved moment to moment in the consciousness while one is not conscious of them. Because if it is indeed in the consciousness, and consciousness means being conscious of something, there should be consciousness of all the imprints. So either it is not in the consciousness, or consciousness doesn't mean being conscious of something. What is the third option?

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

I think the thrust of what Astus is pondering is really 12-fold cycle of DO. What we are calling "mental phenomena" actually fit, under Buddha's model, into the category of unconscious responses, reflexes, conditioned responses, something to that effect. The gist is that we are not actually conscious now. These mental phenomena are not conscious or in a consciousness. And the term vijnana is not well translated as "consciousness." "Perception" is a better word in the sense of how one perceives. For example, one person sees a church as a holy place and another sees it as a tourist place. The church is thus perceived differently. It is not a conscious choice, but is simply conditioned in a deterministic way, when this arises so does that. Further, in the 12-fold scheme "conscious" is what Buddha is, when the unconscious process comes to a stop.

Astus wrote:If alayavijnana is a part/mode of consciousness, why are we not aware of it?

The mind (manas) takes aspects of the ālayavijñāna as the self and what belongs to the self. Yogācārabhūmiśāstra Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī:

Sometimes ālaya-vijñāna arises concurrently (saha pravartate) with just one of the [forms of] arising cognitive awareness, for example, with mind (manas). In this way, the mind (manas) whose mode (ākāra) is conceiving (manyanā) "I-making" (ahaṃkara), the conceit "I am" (asmimāna), always arises and functions simultaneously with ālaya-vijñāna in states with mental activity (sacittaka) and even in states lacking mental activity (acittaka). That [mind (manas)] has the mode of taking ālaya-vijñāna as [its] object and conceiving [it] as "I am [this]" (asmīti) and "[this is] I" (aham iti).

Astus wrote:This could very well be interpreted as that although it is called container consciousness, it is not conscious at all. Then why called consciousness?

It arises in dependence upon the subtle object-supports (ālambana) of inner appropriation and the perception of the container world. Yogācārabhūmiśāstra Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī:

Briefly, ālaya-vijñāna arises by means of a twofold objective support: (1) By the perception of the inner appropriation (upādāna-vijñapti); and (2) By the outward perception of the receptacle world whose aspects are not clearly delineated (bahirdhā apariccinnākāra-bhājana-vijñapti).

Of these, the "inner appropriation" (adhyātmam upādāna) means (1) the impressions which are attached to the falsely discriminated (parikalpita-svabhāvābhiniveśa-vāsanā) and (2) the material forms of the sense faculties along with [their] bases (sādhihi hānam indriya-rūpam). Moreover, [they both occur] in the realms with material form [i.e. kāma- and rūpa-dhātu]. Only the appropriation of impressions (vāsanā-upādāna) [occurs] in the Formless [Realm] (ārupya-[dhātu]).

The "outward perception of the receptacle world, whose aspects are undiscerned" means the continuous, uninterrupted perception of the continuity of the receptacle world based upon that very ālaya-vijñāna which has inner appropriation as an objective support.

Thus, one should know that the way ālaya-vijñāna [arises] in regard to the objective support of inner appropriation and the objective support of the receptacle [world] is similar to a burning flame which arises inwardly while it emits light outwardly on the basis of the wick and oil, respectively.

The objective support [of ālaya-vijñāna] is subtle because it is difficult to discern even by worldly sages.

The objective support [of ālaya-vijñāna] is always there, it is not sometimes this and sometimes that (anyathātva). However, from the first moment of appropriation [of the body at conception] until as long as life lasts [its] perception (vijñapti; T. rigs pa) arises with a single flavor (ekarasatvena) [i.e. homogeneously].

It should be understood that ālaya-vijñāna is momentary regarding [its] objective support, and though it continuously arises in a stream of instants, it is neither singular (ekatva) (Ch. adds: "nor eternal").

For more details see "The Pravṛtti and Nivṛtti Portions of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī" translated by William Waldron in The Buddhist Unconscious: The ālaya-vijñāna in the context of Indian Buddhist thought. RoutledgeCurzon, 2003.

I tend to differ with Jnana's quoted material for the following reasons. The source is myself and my experience with oral transmission in the Vajrayana lineages.

The first Five Consciousnesses (Vijnana) correspond to each of the Five Sense Media (eye, nose, ear, tongue and body). The Sixth Consciousness (Manovijnana), postulating external “objects”, corresponds to the Five Sense Bases or “sense objects.” The Seventh Consciousness (Manas) is the afflicted consciousness that postulates a truly existent subject or “I.” Alayavijnana is the eighth of the Eight Consciousnesses which is the nature of mind, Emptiness, Prajnaparamita, Mahamudra, etc. The sense-Vijnanas, the Manovijnana and the Manas are mutually conditioned by the Three Poisons (ignorances, attachment and aversion), and, together, these constitute the basis (alaya with a little “a”) for samsara. The prime mover is the Manovijnana-Manas dynamic. Thus, the Alaya is not afflicted.

The Manovijnana discriminates a truly existent world of objects. Simultaneously, the Manas discriminates a truly existent subject or “I.” The interplay of these two factors is to become attached to or averse to sense objects and the subject. This dynamic is what accounts for our sense of continuity, memory, and hence our habits. Therefore, the Three Poisons, the Manojvijnana, and the Manas constitute a karmic seed. It is a seed, because it’s life-span is momentary, but the alaya stores it because it is emptiness and the dependent qualities cling to one another until there is the cause for their dissolution.

Take an everyday example of afflicted consciousness: when we see a fine antique vase and we think “I love this vase.” With the help of light, the eye contacts an object, like the fine antique vase. Here we have the sense media contacting the sense base due to light. At this point, there is no consciousness only bare perception. Then, my mind thinks, “vase.” This is the emergence of the Manovijnana positing an object based on the cognitive obscuration of ignorance. Simultaneously, my mind thinks “I…,” because a feeling has arisen of love, hate or neutrality. Here we have the emergence of the Manas positing a subject based on the cognitive obscuration of ignorance that grasps the feeling as real and “mine,” and the afflictive obscuration that loves, hates or is neutral toward the feeling. Thus, in this instance, my mind thinks “…love…” These together constitute the karmic seed.

In the context of Mahamudra practice, the mutually conditioning Manovijnana-Manas positing truly existent objects and a subject is the most important factor. The Manojvijnana is like the monkey that is always looking through one of the windows of a house. The Manovijnana is always looking through one of the five sense doors. As it does this, it gives rise to either a good, bad or neutral feeling regarding sense objects. This feeling is the Manas that we designate as “my” or “I,” and we experience this feeling with the thought that we love, hate or are neutral. When we examine whether the incident feeling has any qualities, like color, shape, etc., we come to realize that the feeling is like space. Examining in this way is like throwing a rock at a glass house. The entire structure of subjects and objects collapses when we do this, leaving nothing but space. This is because the Alaya has always been free from obscurations.

What is an obscuration? It means confusion, avidya, vikalpa. Not knowing the Alaya is the obscuration. Knowing it is "truth," "light" and "enlightenment." The Alaya is unborn, meaning has not come into being. When we see the nature of what is unborn, not created and not new, we see the truth of our nature. Then, there are no obscurations. Seeing the unborn Alaya exposes all obscurations in an instant. The real view is no view. The real seeing is not seeing. All attachments are grasping at something to be real or not real when neither is ever true. This is the meaning of unborn. Thus, the Alaya is neither perceived by the ignorant, apprehended, nor obscured. All the apprehension and obscuration is occurring from the seventh consciousness and below.

deepbluehum wrote:I tend to differ with Jnana's quoted material for the following reasons. The source is myself and my experience with oral transmission in the Vajrayana lineages.

The first Five Consciousnesses (Vijnana) correspond to each of the Five Sense Media (eye, nose, ear, tongue and body). The Sixth Consciousness (Manovijnana), postulating external “objects”, corresponds to the Five Sense Bases or “sense objects.” The Seventh Consciousness (Manas) is the afflicted consciousness that postulates a truly existent subject or “I.” Alayavijnana is the eighth of the Eight Consciousnesses which is the nature of mind, Emptiness, Prajnaparamita, Mahamudra, etc. The sense-Vijnanas, the Manovijnana and the Manas are mutually conditioned by the Three Poisons (ignorances, attachment and aversion), and, together, these constitute the basis (alaya with a little “a”) for samsara. The prime mover is the Manovijnana-Manas dynamic. Thus, the Alaya is not afflicted.

The ālayavijñāna is afflicted since it stores the bijas of affliction.

Thus, the Alaya is neither perceived by the ignorant, apprehended, nor obscured. All the apprehension and obscuration is occurring from the seventh consciousness and below.

Once all the traces have been eradicated, the ālayavijñāna disappears.

There is a difference between the ālaya discussed in Mahāmudra teachings and the ālayavijñāna. However in Dzogchen teachings, the ālaya is also considered afflicted. In Dzogchen ālaya = avidyā.

Malcolm wrote:The ālayavijñāna is afflicted since it stores the bijas of affliction.

It is this erroneous thinking that has created so much confusion over the centuries.

Once all the traces have been eradicated, the ālayavijñāna disappears.

Emptiness can never disappear. The Alaya-vijnana is emptiness.

There is a difference between the ālaya discussed in Mahāmudra teachings and the ālayavijñāna. However in Dzogchen teachings, the ālaya is also considered afflicted. In Dzogchen ālaya = avidyā.

I resolved these discrepancies. Take another look at my analysis. What you said might be the formulaic subscriptions given by certain teachers from certain lineages at certain times, but there is no reason to think these should remain so fixed. The discrepancies between Mahayana, Mahamudra and Dzogchen are important to look at. What they are all talking about is the same thing in different ways. In order to resolve discrepancies, I prefer to simplify the explanatory model rather than elaborate it or extend it. If you take the 7th and below to constitute the karmic seeds, then affliction is already tied in as mutually dependent force. We don't need to afflict the Alaya-vijnana and thereby create another Alaya or Dzogchen or some other terms. Essentially the afflictions and obscurations live in the seventh. And when the seventh sees the eighth, the afflictions and obscurations disappear. The discrepancies arise because these shastras are taken as authoritative, and the problems they create are resolved by the tantra and upadesha masters by creating more layers. That's is just bloat, not logic or enlightenment.

Malcolm wrote:The ālayavijñāna is afflicted since it stores the bijas of affliction.

It is this erroneous thinking that has created so much confusion over the centuries.

No, it is a simple definition found in various sutras.

Once all the traces have been eradicated, the ālayavijñāna disappears.

Emptiness can never disappear. The Alaya-vijnana is emptiness.

Yes, according to the definition of Candrakirit given in the Madhyamaka-avatarabhasyaṃ but not according to the definition of the cittamatra school. So you have to be clear whose definition you are speaking from. Incidentally, in the tantras, they use the definition of the cittamatra school since ālayavijñāna is relative consciounsess that is a function of the body.

There is a difference between the ālaya discussed in Mahāmudra teachings and the ālayavijñāna. However in Dzogchen teachings, the ālaya is also considered afflicted. In Dzogchen ālaya = avidyā.

I resolved these discrepancies. Take another look at my analysis. What you said might be the formulaic subscriptions given by certain teachers from certain lineages at certain times, but there is no reason to think these should remain so fixed.

I go by the definitions provided in the man ngag sde tantras where the definition of the ālaya is well defined. It is of little use to reconcile different terminologies apart from noting that they refer to different things.

In Mahāmudra and Lamdre, ālaya refers to the nature of the mind i.e. inseperable clarity and emptiness. In Dzogchen ālaya refers to ignorance. It is very simple. Not even worth a discussion, really.